V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU. NAMADEV METRI: MEMBER

          The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for crop claiming crop loan insurance claim as shown in schedule para No.4 with interest @ 18% p.a, compensation. Towards mental agony with cost of Rs.1000/- each.

           2.  The brief facts of the complaint are under:

          Complainants are stated that they are Agriculturists, residents of Adrakatti village, Shirahatti Taluk,  in Gadag Dist. they have paid crop insurance for crop of Onion, Ground Nut and Green Gram for the year 2005-06 of Rabi/Kharif season. Complainants have mentioned the details regarding  name of crop, Sy. Number, the extent premium and assured amount, the amount paid by insurance company and difference amount due to failure of rain in the schedule.  The  Govt. declared drought and demand for entire assured amount. But, the Ops did not pay the assured amount. Hence, filed this complaint.

          3.       After registering the case, notice was issued to Ops. OP No.1 appeared through counsel and OP No.3 appeared through DGP and OP No.2 remained absent

          4.       The brief facts of the written version filed by OP No.1 are as under:

          OP No.1 denied the various allegations in the complaint. The OP No.1 contended that, as per NAIS claims will be disbursed  through Nodal Bank as per shortfall declared in that notified crop.  As per the yield data issued by Director of Economic and statistic for the year Rabi/Kharif 2005-06 there was a shortfall in the yield Accordingly, they have already settled all eligible claims through nodal Banks.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint. 

          5.       The brief facts of the written version filed by OP No.3 are as under:

          OP No.3 denied the contention of the complaint and contended that complainants are not a consumer under C.P.Act.  The duty of the OP No.3 is only supervision, and observation.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6.       To prove the case, complainant No.6 filed affidavit and affidavit evidence was examined by the OP No.1  The counsel for OP No.1 filed written arguments.  After hearing the argument common  Judgment was passed in
CC. No.323/08, 328/08, 378/08, 442/08, 443/08, 444/08 and 445/08 along with this complaint and partly allowed and awarded the compensation. OP No.1 preferred an appeal No.1887/09 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, same came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.       After receipt of the order, notice was issued to the parties and again passed common Judgment in 378/08, 442/08, 443/08, 444/08 and 445/08 along with this complaint and partly allowed and awarded the compensation.  OP No.1 again preferred an appeal No.2687/10,  same came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8.       After receipt of the record, again passed common Judgment in CC No.369/08, 370/08, 312/09, 334/09 along with this complaint and partly allowed and awarded the compensation. Again OP No.1 preferred  an appeal No.308/16 before Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore same came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal with observation that affidavit of each complainant shall be taken.

          9.       After receipt of record, notice was issued to parties, notice served to complainant No.3 to 8 they remained absent and notice of complainant No.1 & 2 reported as dead, and no LRs are brought on record. The affidavit of complainant No.6 filed on 15.07.2008 is examined as CW-1 marked documents as Ex.C-1 & C-2 and taken as no evidence of complainant No.1 to 5, 7 & 8.  KVK Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and OP No.2 remained absent,  inspite of service of notice.  DGP filed memo of appearance to OP No.3 and filed written version and one Praveen Kumar B.R for OP No.1 filed affidavit and examined as RW-1 and marked the documents as Ex.OP No.1 to 5.  

          10.     Heard the arguments on both sides.

          11.     The points for consideration to us are as under:

1. Whether the complainants prove that, there is a deficiency in service by the OPs?

2. Whether the complainants prove that, they are          

entitled for relief?

3. What Order?

       12.   Our findings on the above points are as under:

               Point No. 1:  Negative.

               Point No. 2:  Negative

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

               13.  Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.

             14.  On careful perusal of the materials placed before the Commission, complainant No.6 filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the affidavit.
PW-1 has stated that complainants are Agriculturists, residents of Adrakatti village, Shirahatti Taluk,  in Gadag Dist. They have paid crop insurance for Onion, Ground Nut and Green Gram for the year 2005-06 of Rabi/Kharif season. Complainants have mentioned in details regarding  name of crop, Sy. Number, the extent, premium assured amount, the amount paid by insurance company and difference amount, due to failure of rain in the schedule,  the  Govt. declared drought. But, the Ops did not pay the assured amount.

            15. RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by the OP No.1 as per NAIS claims will be disbursed through Nodal Bank as per shortfall in the notified area. As per the yield data issued by Director of Economic and statistic for the year Robi 2005-06 there is a shortfall. Accordingly, they have already settled all eligible claims through nodal Banks. 

          16. Ex.C-1 is notification issued by Deputy Commissioner Gadag,  reveals that for the year 2005-06 due to failure of rain, declared Shirahatti taluk for Robi and Kharif season as drought and exempted the tax.  Ex.C-2 notification issued by District Statics Department reveals that for the year 2005-06 as per crop cutting plan there is a shortfall.

          17. Ex.C-1 regarding drought declared by Govt. is not helpful to the complainants.  If drought declared for particular area, Taluk or Dist. Govt. releases the compensation to all farmers including non-insurer.  So far as crop insurance is concerned, as per guidelines. Ex.Op-1 to ascertain the shortfall,   procedure is followed.  Average 7 years yield of crop, excluding two  years minimum yield and taking into average of 5 years it is  decided on the basis of crop cutting process.  Ex.OP-2 to 5 instructions to Nodal Banks regarding Rabi and Kharif season 2005, settlement claim for Kharif-2005, past 5 years yield data, average yield data of onion, ground nut and green gram clearly goes to show that there was a shortfall and already Ops have settled the compensation.  It is not disputed by the complainants as shown in the schedule, para. No.4 of the complaint.  Wherein it is ispecifically mentioned the extent, premium paid amount, assured amount insured amount paid by OP No.1 as average of shortfall.

          18. The main contention of complainant is that, after deducting shortfall amount out of insured amount they are entitled for the difference amount.  Complainants are not entitled for the entire assured amount as per guidelines.  They are entitled only for shortfall amount.  Such being the case, there is no deficiency of service committed by the Ops as they already settled the amount for shortfall to each complainants. No cause of action arose to file the complaint.  Complainants specifically mentioned the amount credited to their account by OP in complaint.  However,they again pleaded that Ops have not settled the insurance amount.  Even in the affidavit of PW-1 reiterated the contentions of the complaint.  But not disclosed the amount credited to his account.

          19.     As per observation made by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangaluru, complainants have to file their affidavit evidence separately to prove their case.  After remand, notice was personally served to the complainants No.3 to 8,  but they have not appeared and filed their affidavit evidence. Of course complainant No.1 & 2 are reported as dead, their LR’s are also not brought on record and filed their affidavits. Sole affidavit evidence of PW-1/ “complainants No.6 is available”.  Even complainant No.6 has also failed to prove that there is deficiency of service committed by Ops and entitled for the relief.  So for as complainant No.1 to 5 and 7 & 8  are concerned they have not filed their affidavit evidence to prove their case as per observation made by the State Govt.  So they have also failed to prove their case.

          20.     For the reasons stated  in the above paras,  Complainants have failed to prove that, the Ops have committed the deficiency of service.  Accordingly, we answered point No.1 l& 2 in the negative.

          21.     POINT NO. 3: In the result, we pass the following:

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.No order as to costs.

Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

            (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 28^th  day of July- 2022)

           (Shri Raju N. Metri)      (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

                MEMBER                  PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER

: ANNEXURE :-

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

PW-1: Ramappa Basavannappa Chikkannavar

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 Circular of Govt. of Karnataka dtd:07.10.2006.

Ex.C-2 Letter Statistical Department, Gadag dated                   

            29.09.2012.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1: Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1  Copy of the Scheme Guidelines.

Ex.OP-2: Copy of the Instructions to Nodal Banks Kharif-2005.

Ex.Op-3: Copy of the Kharif 2005 Bankwise Claims.

Ex.Op-4: Copy of the details of past 5 years yield data-District/Taluk/Hoble                      wise.

Ex. OP-5:  Copy of the Average yield data for the period 2005 Kharif issued by                    the Govt. of Karnataka dtd:31.03.2006.

(Shri Raju N. Metri)        (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)           (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

        MEMBER                    PRESIDENT                   WOMAN MEMBER